Quote from: tdx on August 23, 2015, 12:05:41 AM
Here is how you can predict if the Player will get an 8 or 9 on the first card.......and let you  win millions playing baccarat

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/04/sorting-out-the-law-behind-phil-ivey-s-edge-sorting-debacle-18054.htm

Yeah, it remains to be really payed such millions 

as.

Perfect.

as.

Knowing the value of just one card in the exact position (from 1 to 6) could get us a mathematical edge in most cases, we might set up a betting plan.
The largest edges will come out when:

- the first card is a 9 dealt to the Player (21.528%)
- the second card is a 9 dealt to the Banker (20.641%)
- the fifth card is a 4 dealt to the Player (18.316%)
- the first card is an 8 dealt to the Player (17.294%)
- the second card is an 8 dealt to the Banker (16.493%)
- the sixth card is a 5 dealt to the Banker (14.514%)
- the sixth card is a 6 dealt to the Banker (14.424%)

Thus if we were able to get such aknowledge, we'll easily destroy the game itlr.

Unfortunately we cannot benefit of those situations.

Since we are stubbornly oriented to beat the game we want to try whether the statistical approach might help us.
After all baccarat is a finite and dependent process game.

To simplify the process, we'll register the times when a 9 or an 8 is dealt as first card to the Player side and the times when the fifth card is a 4, those situations having the highest ROI on P side.
There are many reasons to just consider the P side.

It's easy to notice that the very first card dealt will have a higher impact on every bac hand than every other position as many hands will end up after just 4 cards have been dealt. Surely the second same value card dealt on the other side will show a more or less impact similar to the first card, but most of the times we'll have to pay an unnecessary 5% vig on our winning wagers.

In a word, a very deviated situation where 9s, 8s will not fall in the first spot and 4s will not fall in the 5th spot, should entice a RTM effect where next P hands will show a slight player's edge.

Of course, there's an additional issue to consider: how many 9s, 8s and 4s are really live in the left deck.

We cannot hope to get a 4 falling into the 5th spot if many 4s were removed from the deck in the right or more likely "wrong" spots.

The same about the most likely cards capable to end up right now a bac decision: 8s and 9s.

The most part of 2.5 and 3 sr deviations taken are going to get a higher RTM effect than the propensity to reach larger deviations, expecially if we are properly considering the card removal effect per any shoe.

In this perspective, we aren't playing to get some P or B winning hands, we are betting that a given card (or better a bunch of such cards) will have to fall in a given spot after a very large absence and after having assessed that such key cards are very live per any live deck. (So many shoes won't provide any hint).

as.



       
















 










 










 









   



 

 



     

So, imo, a long term winning system should be able to totally erase and invert the negative expectation on some selected P bets.

P bets cannot benefit of any positive mathematical factor like a part of B wagers, on the contrary they must bear it along the way.

We want to transform a 50.68/49.32 game into a perfect 50/50 game, hopefully deviated to the right term of the ratio.

Imo, there are many reasons to pick up the P side bets to assess whether our system is really working or not.
The most important reason is that P bets are payed even money and itlr there are no tricks to alter the registration of W and L distributions knowing that one side is underdog.

Unlike roulette, where a binomial proposition (R/B) could give the lucky player long term positive outcomes by SD issues (unfortunately destroyed by the zero/zeroes appearance), at baccarat any hand will provide an outcome placed on one chance or another (ties excluded, but they are neutral and not negative results).
Therefore, at baccarat a neutral or winning long term P bet placement is, imo, the best tool we could have to ascertain if our tests were the subproduct of luck or something else.

Admitting a no fixed game, we are 100% sure that in the long run the expected gap between B and P hands will approach with more and more precision the 50.68/49.32 expected ratio.

Hence, after 10.000 placed bets on P side we expect to lose an average of 136 bets (124 if we consider the "resolved bets", but I take the first value for simplicity).

After 100.000 bets, our P wagering will show an average of 1360 loss and after 1 million of P placed bets, we'll lose an average of 13.600 units.

Now I dare to state that if after several hundreds of thousands of P side placed bets a player is having a neutral result or a small profit, well, it means that he/she was able to utilize a good bet selection.

Anyway, moving such knowledge into the practical environment is a difficult task, despite of the appearances.


The B side is either more enticing as it's less unfavorite and more silly as we have to pay a 5% vig on many B winning bets not showing a given mathematical advtantage.
For example, 20 B winning bets not contemplating any asymmetrical hand will produce 1 sure unit loss.

Of course mathematics will tell us that itlr the best move to take is betting B as it's a 0.24% better move (meaning we'll lose 0.24% less than on P bets).
Good, as baccarat is a mathematically unbeatable game.

And mathematicians keep stating that any hand ON AVERAGE will be always 50.68/49.32 placed.
That's true, on average.

For example and giving a card composition topic (anyway not working at a substantial degree), a terminal deck particularly rich of 7s, 8s and 9s will provide a huge amount of symmetrical hands.
In that instance only a fool would bet the B side as the AS/S hands ratio will be much lower than expected.

Luckily, we don't need to counting cards because itlr the mere distribution of hands will help us.

It'll be a very difficult and very diluted task but we can make it.


as. 

   






       



   



   

 





 

 

So am I stating that a given long term winning method should get us more winning P bets than what mathematics dictates?
After all P bets are just a less slightly half part of whole bets. And they are mathematically underdog, of course.

That's an interesting point.

We are sure and we can bet everything we have on our name that in the long run B1<B2<B3<B4 up to a point and P1>P2>P3>P4>P5 infinitely.

Anyway, we know that at baccarat it's steadily working a very slight force shifting the outcomes on the opposite side of the last hand occurred (Shackleford, WoO and many others).

Now the whole trick is about assessing the real relationship between first and second assumption.

That's the solution to beating baccarat itlr, imo.

Therefore, we should assess the times where the as force is shifting the outcomes toward one side and the times where the card distribution force shifts the results toward the opposite hand just occurred.

Well, in a perfectly 50/50 game everything will be 50/50 placed, so the game is following the binomial rules everyone here knows.

Alas a perfect 50/50 game cannot be beaten by any means.
But baccarat isn't a perfect 50/50 game. Fortunately.

Then, we should evaluate the relationship between the most likelihood to get B streaks/superior B streaks and P singles/P streaks and P streaks/P superior streaks with the probability to get the opposite outcome to the last hand occurred.

If you notice, one side is infinitely going to get certain results, the other one is fighting to get some expected results along with some other "unexpected" outcomes.

So one side is going to get some univocal results, about the other one we're not sure about it.

Moreover, the "univocal results" side will follow some statistical features belonging to some "unaccepted" statistical findings.

Baccarat is an asymmetrical game by nature and that means that we'll easily expect some (many) asymmetrical findings.

When an asymmetrical force is acting upon a given system, most of the times we are expecting to have such force working a lot or almost nothing at all.
And this assumption is even truer when we are talking about a finite production system, as a 416 (or 312) deck shoe.

Hence, on one side we are one trillion sure to get long term certain results taking some rare cut-off points as targets; on the other side our task to get some "expected" results is more complicated as there are more struggling and opposite forces working, anyway in the long run falling on some certain results being the subproduct of asymmetricity and card distribution.

Itlr and evaluating some DD topics, there's no one single possiblity to get 50/50 outcomes and there's no way such results will follow a 50.68-49.32 ratio. With one trillion of accuracy.

as.   

   












 


















 

Whenever we test a given method we could experience the illusion to have discovered the miracle betting mood to get the best of it itlr. Meaning we get an edge over the house. Meaning we can invert the house negative edge into a positive one.
By acutely thought progressions or brilliant betting selections it doesn't matter.

There are many scientific assumptions and tests available to prove our system is really working or not.

The best and most annoying assumption is that no one progression could overcome a mathematical negative edge game.
Or that one coming from a BJ pro stating that is a perfect gambling miracle to triple up our bankroll two times in a row before going broke. 
I personally agree and I can't dispute this assumption.

Then it comes the second and more interesting assumption: there's no way to place our bets to get an edge without the use of any progression. Meaning we cannot get any kind of fk advantage choosing what to bet and what to not bet.
So despite our efforts directed to find some possible miracle EV+ spots, we aren't going anywhere as mathematics dictates that every our bet will always produce a negative global outcome.
Now I personally disagree.

Obviously, a possible EV+ betting selection will get better results by the use of a progression, providing it will take care of the itlr fluctuations of the game and after having properly assessed our long term edge.

Experts think that such positive edge bet selection doesn't exist at all and they are right because they keep thinking on mathematical terms.
So every single hand the game is producing will get an average of 50.68-49.32 mathematical expectation.  And every f bet we'll place is getting a long term 1.06%-1.24% negative edge.

So far so good. No news.

Back to the topic.

Many internet winning method sellers claim to get an edge over the house (some i.diots claim to get a 70% edge over the house, a real bighornshit).
Obviously we know with 100% accuracy that no one progression could have the best of it.
Likewise we know that a given edge must be produced by a simple flat betting procedure and I don't know a single author able to demonstrate that a FB method will give the player an edge.

Imo, the real accurate test to ascertain that a method is really a winning one is a betting procedure capable to totally erase or hopefully invert the P hands' inferior expectancy.

I mean a betting method where our P bets will get a zero results gap with B hands at worst or a slight edge itlr.

In the long run.

What's the long run?

Difficult to say, but I dare to say that we are in good shape after having noticed that our P bets are showing a zero or a slight positive outcome after thousands and thousand of shoes where B hands are getting closer to the 50.68-49.32 ratio. So no tricks or positive variance issues are allowed as any P bet must have a zero or positive otucome at worst.   

In a word, a possible winning method should surpass my personal ABG rule suggesting that a winning bet selection must produce either neutral or positive P betting long term outcomes, that is a betting selection capable to totally erase the B advantage over thousands and thousands of shoes.

How many betting selection systems are able to get such accomplishment?

Summarizing, imo a long term winning method should be able to catch those spots where P bets are going to get neutral (at worst) or positive long term outcomes.

Mathematics dictates in every P spot we'll bet we are getting a -1.24% disadvantage, but actually and for some weird reason my rule likes to state that a winning system should get a 0% or a slight positive edge.

And I'm only talking about the worst B/P proposition the game will produce, the P bets.

as. 

   
 


 



 


   

 



 



























   

Quote from: Mike on May 22, 2015, 08:21:54 AM
AsymBacGuy,

Send me your system by PM and I'll prove it doesn't work. 

Thanks, but I save you the time to test it.

Somebody else is doing the job right now.
 

as.

Thanks for your attention, soxfan.

If you'll have the kindness to purchase it, you won't read some spectacular assumptions.

But if you keep losing after having read my ideas, well call the police. 

as. 

That's my book I'm glad to introduce here.  It will be printed in october.

Contents (so far no editing was made, so i'm sorry about my bad english):

- General concepts

- Differences between a perfect 50/50 game and baccarat

- The role and the weight of asymmetricity

- Dispositions and distributions

- Baccarat variance and the "decline in probability" concept applied to baccarat

- Banker side events vs Player side events. The "enemy concept"

- Approaches based on the most likely events apparition

- Getting an edge by flat betting on some selected spots, part one

- Online vs live casinos

- The long term winning baccarat player attitude



as.

Imo, Sputnik and Bayes provided very good replies.

I'd add the value of the decline in probability concept thanks to a past contribute of sxzbox (or something like that) member.

In a word and for the few who don't know the concept, rarer events tend to appear clustered at the start then their appearance will dilute.
Despite the original work (Spencer-Brown) didn't suggest a possible gambling advantage, I found that many rare occasions tend to be clustered, then deeply decreasing their frequency.

Since we cannot establish a "start" to many rare gambling situations, we should wait the times when they will appear very clustered, then betting toward the opposite events' apparition up to some point.

Curiously, at least at baccarat, some unfavourable rare situations will tend to follow such distribution, meaning that our "enemy" will come out very often or almost nothing at all.

as.   







 

Jim, you can safely assume that the WL sequences are very different depending what you are registering.

Some players, as gr8player, prefer to get some hint on the actual trend and side domination (well knowing what theorically happens most), others prefer to base their play just on relatively rare long term findings (me and many others), others prefer to utilize progressions giving to the bet selection a minor or zero impact.

IMO, there's no way to get any hint without observing/registering a decent amount of outcomes.

So, for example and imho and providing a simple BS, it's better to wait a WLLLW to bet than wagering on simple W or L or WL or LW or LL sequences.

The problem is to grasp the BS providing better reliable outcomes than others.

If the game would be a 50/50 game, any sequence (I can't use anymore the word disposition) will form identical results, so the number of a sequence like WWWLL will be equal to the identical counterpart of WWWLW.
That's not the case for many situations.

as.   






   















   

 




   

A big question in gambling is when do you stop?


Much of the decision will depend on whether or not you still feel lucky..


Keep playing because "we are feeling lucky" or quitting the table because "we are feeling unlucky" are really surprising words coming from a professional player.


Maybe Renzoni had an extraordinary talent to "control" the game and after all his book is an enjoyable reading.


Jimskie, thanks for the quote but there are no mystery bets.

The bets are coming after having selected some sequences and everything follows the expected, so no mystery involved.
 

as.



 







 








   

Hi Sputnik.
Just a question.
How do you manage the tax issue when the game will provide the invariable "stagnation" periods at a given same level?

For example, if your MM dictates to bet 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 and the deviations are included in such space, you are losing money as the vast majority of any WL sequence or other "proportional" sequences will provide a small loss (banker vig at baccarat, zero/double zeroes at roulette).

Thanks in advance

as.

Quote from: Bayes on December 31, 2014, 05:05:03 PM

Every time we try to force the next hand/spin to conform to a sequential probability (as we often do when creating systems) we end up assuming that trials are dependent, which they're not, so we have committed the gambler's fallacy.

Hi!
This is totally true at roulette, 100% absolutely wrong at baccarat.

as.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 20, 2014, 02:28:52 PM
But in Baccarat there is never any edge, it is a money game. 

LOL.



as.